Tony Blair’s accounts ‘massively opaque’

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair channelled millions of pounds through a network of companies and paid just a fraction in tax, according to recently published official accounts.

The accounts provide the strongest evidence yet of the scale of Blair’s complicated finances through his various activities since leaving office in June 2007, which include his business consultancy firm Tony Blair Associates, speeches/lectures, and acting as an adviser to JP Morgan and Zurich, among other ventures.

Richard Murphy said in his blog that Blair adopted a “massively opaque structure” to ensure that much of his activity was hidden from view in an “arcane and rare” corporate structure called a 'limited partnership'.

The former Labour leader had set up a management services company, Windrush Venture, which was principally used to manage his business affairs.

The accounts reveal an income last year of more than £12m and ‘administrative expenses’ of £10.9m, leaving Windrush Ventures with a profit of more than £1m, on which Blair paid just £315,000 in corporate tax, at a rate of 28%.

'By exploiting legal but dubious legal loopholes he has ensured contrary to the spirit of the law that it does not need to file its accounts on public record even though all its members are limited liability entities'

A both above qs: Mr Tony Blair was Prime Minister when the legislation for both IR35 and also CA 2006, and I do not recall Mr Tony Blair saying anything like "Pass these pieces of legislation because I wish to have the advantage of a double standard of complex company etc structures when compared to the average hard worker who's working as a contractor."

Curiously, he did push through the Minimum Wage (MW) legislation, which did bring a slight sense of fairness about Labour's employment policy; but MW was a manifesto committment, and IR35 was not - at least as far as I recall it! [Please let me know if I've misremebered a 1997 Labour Manifesto committment to enact the IR35 suite of legislation ...]

Although Tony Blair has shown great skill in exploiting his situation since resigning as PM, he is not the first and he won't be the last. He does however seem to have done financially much better than most, but they all had their little wheezes.

Certainly I remember similar dodgy dealings with Ted Heath and the Chinese

Harold Wilson would possibly have done worse but for the onset of early-onset Alzheimer's disease, which Certainly he was accused by Private Eye of various dubious practices while acting as President of the Board of Trade and appointed several dubious characters to the House of Lords (including Lord Kagan) in his resignation honours list.

Contrary to "frustratedwithhmrc", Labour's TB (Tony Blair) as PM was (in my opinion) unfair to workers, especially self-employed workers, in arranging to pass the "fiscal horror" of IR35. This aspect is - in my opinion - unlike the cases frustratedwithhmrc mentioned re: Ted Heath, Margaret T, and possibly Harold Wilson, where these PMs seem to me to have tried - at least in part - to increase UK exports for the benefit of the UK in general, including frustratedwithhmrc!

Now frustratedwithhmrc may argue that TB has not told us the "lie direct" (to quote that grammar schoolboy William Shakespear); however, in my personal opinion, based on what I have witnessed, TB seems to have told me an "indirect lie or lies"; whether that was intentional or not by TB is another matter, e.g. his apparent regrets on the passing of Fredom of Information Act.

We are either witnessing a tradegy or a comedy here, because it certainly seems to me to be an hilarity that the so-called "labour party" was unwilling or unable to protect "British Workers" from IR35, etc, once TB left Parliament.

What is clear is that the non-Labour Coalition has to clear up the mess left by TB and Gordon Brown (GB), and David Cameron (DC) has expressed a willingness to do so, starting with the OTS and anti-avoidance words. We shall see what can be done by 2015 because, if nothing is done, then the present political classes may have a very rude awakening from the British people and perhaps a "British Spring".

Let's bring DC some fair solutions. For a start, here's my easy way to clear up the worst of IR35's "secondary legislation": The IR35 enabling SI 2000/727 section 7(1) Step One currently reads: QUOTE 7 Worker's attributable earnings—calculation (1) For the purposes of regulation 6(3)(a) the amount of the worker's attributable earnings for a tax year is calculated as follows: Step One Find the total amount of all payments and benefits received by the intermediary in that year under the arrangements, and reduce that amount by 5 per cent ENDQUOTE and its currently bad economic effects could be "simplified" by replacing the words of "by 5 per cent" with "by a monetary amount that is the greater of either (a) the VAT registration threshold for a worker who did not work for a period of at least 3 (three) calendar months after the date his or her previous actual contract for service if any ended or (b) 5 (five) per cent for all other workers".

BTW: GB's wife seemed to me to cease her involvement in a personal services company shortly after IR35 was enacted, I remember: Was "the Chancellor's wife" caught by IR35?

Sadly "frustratedwithhmrc", in order to relieve my frustrations with HMRC etc, I have to publicise a fair solution to TB's IR35 matter (especially to cover the alleged "Friday to Monday" problem by my suggesting the insertion of a 'cooling off period of a minimum of 3 months') that is the result of legislation enacted when TB (Tony Blair) was PM, because - in my opinion - some legally qualified people seem to me to know how to work round IR35, whilst other workers who would wish to work as self-employed are unable to plan their financial affairs - and hence may choose not to so work - due to the uncertainty of what the "end client" might say in the formulation of the "hypothetical contract", especially as the actual contract with the end client may be concealed from the worker for several years.

I also take a dim view of Labour's legislative "Catch 22" situation (in my opinion) of IR35 legislation where a worker can - on the same facts - apparently be judged (1) to be an employee of an end client by a tax tribunal based on a "hypothetical contract", but (2) not to be an employee of the same "hypothetical" end client by an employment tribunal; such a nonsense seems contrary to natural justice to me.

I furthermore regret that I have to highlight what's in my opinion an apparent "legal double standard" that was set up in part by former lawyer TB when in Parliament, and is now - in my opinion - apparently being exploited by TB since he's left Parliament.

Regarding your assertion that "He HAS though, probably been the most successful in purely financial terms" may I point out that TB was quoted in the latest issue of The Sunday Telegraph page 9 column 8 as saying QUOTE "I probably spend two-thirds of my time on pro-bono activity, I probably spend the biggest single chunk of my time on the Middle East process which I do unpaid" ... "So, if what I was interested in was making money I could make a lot more and have a very gentle and easy life." ENDQUOTE

I have this question: Wouldn't it be better for UK if more UK workers were productively working as a result of a simple amendment of the "fiscal horror" of IR35, even if that would relatively diminish TB being "the most successful in purely financial terms"?

BTW: As soon as my - or anybody else's - device is implemented to bring a sense of fairness to the current madness of IR35, I'll gladly shut up. Have I persuaded you yet that IR35 deserves your attention, and your explicit support for its amendment?

I am not sure why the use of a Limited partnership is arcane - Mr Blair has chosen to structure his business dealings in a way that suit his purposes - something we are all entitled to do. Whether this is a principled way in which to act is a different matter.

I have plenty of clients who operate through partnerships for the very reason that they wish to keep the success or otherwise of their business out of the spotlight. That is what we have here is it not.

As for £8m of unexplained expenditure - that is a matter for the tax man in common, again, with all tax payers in business. We need to rely on HMRC to treat TB in the same way as all business people of whatever scale and sadly this is where the system breaks down - with money comes power and it seems these days the ability to influence the authorities.

Is this article saying that no one should trade using a partnership and that all accounts should be on the public record? If so that would upset a lot of solicitors and other professionals.

And is the writer also trying to suggest that taxpayers shouldn't use structures that minimise their tax liabilities? After all many people have been using companies in partnership to divert profits to be taxed at lower rates.

In fact you could argue that by using an LP Tony Blair is being more open than most people who use the above structure as LP accounts must be submitted to companies house if they have a corporate partner unlike normal partnerships.

When referring to a limited partnership as arcane, I suspect he means the Limited Partnership Act 1907 variety and not the more modern and more well known LLP. I think it fair to describe a 1907 version as arcane.

So what, a private individual/company has made some money in what are deeply difficult times for many.

So what, he has paid (probably through the nose for KPMG!) a decent firm of accountants to minimise his tax and maximise his take - isn't that what a good accountant should be helping his/her client to do?

Did he exploit position, power and contacts to do all the above? - who knows? I know that the last company I worked for removed my personal stash of business cards on my departure but I guess that is not so easy for a PM - I bet his Nokia 6310 was jammed full of tyrants, sadists, FTSE 100 fat cats and other European leaders!

What is the real story here chaps?

Loopholes - Are just that and as the commentator points out, legal. No issue there then.

Profit - I know it is a dirty word in the UK and we think any business (be it TB, British Gas, etc) should try to avoid it, but for Pensions sake, I am personally glad they do make oodles of cash

Tax avoidance - You're born, you pay tax, you die. Steps 1 and 3 you have little if any influence over so why not try and play with one of lifes only certainties!

It is TB - Absolutely. Had this been anyone else it would not even be on AWEB.

So before we 'Occupy AWeb' to prove we dont wash and dont like making money, add a little temper to this story......

Dare I say I like the guy and well done for stashing a few quid for retirement. Having worked with the people he had to, he deserves a break.......????

For was it not the devious duo of lawyers - TB and GB who intoduced a £1.5m limit on tax free pension pots - and then exempted themselves from the limit (as PM and the Chancellor of the Exchequer). And lest this self serving act were to be challenged in the courts, High Court judges were also exempted from this limit. And nobody else.

Surprisingly some people still wonder why the most corrupt government in UK history was so despised!

So I am sure that TB had the foresight to ensure that enough loopholes were left in the tax law to ensure that he would pay minimal tax on his earnings after he left power.

He is referring to LPs, or Limited Partnerships. This is a much older type of entity, and this the first time I've ever seen it in use. Under these rules, one of the partners must have unlimited liability, but he has appointed a Ltd company as the unlimited partner. LPs, unlike LLPs or Ltd Companies, do not have to file accounts with companies house.

"I also take a dim view of Labour's legislative "Catch 22" situation (in my opinion) of IR35 legislation where a worker can - on the same facts - apparently be judged (1) to be an employee of an end client by a tax tribunal based on a "hypothetical contract", but (2) not to be an employee of the same "hypothetical" end client by an employment tribunal; such a nonsense seems contrary to natural justice to me."

As far as I'm aware, no one has tested this opinion in court yet.

It is my contention that if anyone were to go to the Employment Tribunal (or whatever they are now called) after being judged "caught" by IR35, then the ET would be unlikely to counter the opinion of the Tax Commissioners (or whatever these are called these days).

The system doesn't like disagreeing with itself. The reverse should also be true. Whatever employment status the ET decided, should be upheld by the Tax Commissioners.

I went to the EAT in 2001 to establish exactly that point. I appear to have warded off HMRC as they have not yet challenged me over IR35. However IR35 caught to ET would be an interesting scenario.

However, being cynical, I don't think the establishment would allow this to happen and some legal skullduggery (I've been subjected to it) would be employed to prevent it.

In my opinion, RE the comment "As far as I'm aware, no one has tested this opinion in court yet", IANTO may be correct, BUT - and my memory may be at fault here - in my opinion I seem to remember reading on AWEB:

(1) a possible example - perhaps allegedly involving "HP" or perhaps someone else or perhaps not - of the possible scenarios that (in my opinion) that I described, and

(2) perhaps another thread from an apparent former HMRC employee that indicated to me that there may be different tests for "Mutuality of Obligation" (MOO) for each of the possible scenarios that (in my opinion) that I described earlier.

However, in the context of the "cuts" and some Labour MPs asserting that there should not be extensive cuts to the Legal Aid budget, I do believe that Labour MPs have brought this matter on themselves regarding IR35. Surely the best "Legal Aid" that Labour MPs (and now other MPs) can give to other workers would be to produce legislation that does not have a legislative "Catch 22" situation possibilty!

Sorry I can't say more at this time re (1) and (2) above, as I have to meet another deadline ... however, I wish you "good hunting!"

Now Simonwwhit has hit on the real outrage -that of pensions. The ever limited amounts that hardworking people can draw from their own SIPPs and SSAS's built up over a lifetime of hard work - restricted to 100% of GAD per annum currently (reduced from 120% of GAD). This means that those who have built up a reasonable pension fund may never actually be able to draw the whole amount they have saved in their lifetime thus subjecting the remainder to a huge tax burden (circa 80% I believe) once they pass away. These rules have been enacted by those civil sevants who have a gold plated non contributory indexed linked pension.....

as an adviser i wouldn't be doing my job if i didn't at the very least give the client an option to save tax if it is through legitimate means. And currently i haven't seen anything to suggest that TB has broken the law.

As to the suggestion that the accounts are being kept secret....well if you are Limited you have to disclose them via co hse....but you do get the choice of doing abbreviated....which most if not all take up (thereby hiding the P&L details.....nowt illegal about that).

Both cliver23 and justsotax's posts today seem to me to opine that they "haven't seen anything to suggest that TB has broken the law"; however I note that on 11Jan'12 jonbryce wrote on this thread that:

"No, not LLPs He is referring to LPs, or Limited Partnerships. This is a much older type of entity, and this the first time I've ever seen it in use. Under these rules, one of the partners must have unlimited liability, but he has appointed a Ltd company as the unlimited partner. LPs, unlike LLPs or Ltd Companies, do not have to file accounts with companies house." So, prompted by jonbryce, I have this question for either cliver23 and/or justsotax, please: Does the law allow an LP (Limited Partnership) to have a "Limited company" as the "unlimited [liability] partner"?

9. Does a limited partnership need to send accounts to Companies House?

Not usually. There is no requirement for a limited partnership to send accounts to Companies House unless the The Partnerships (Accounts) Regulations 2008 apply. In these circumstances, if the General Partner is a limited company, a copy of the partnership accounts must be appended to, and filed with, the limited company accounts.

FYI 2: The Partnerships (Accounts) Regulations 2008 are found at SI 2008/569,

3.—(1) A partnership which is formed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom is a qualifying partnership for the purposes of these Regulations if each of its members is—

(a) a limited company, or

…

Preparation of accounts of qualifying partnerships

4.—(1) Subject to regulation 7, the persons who are members of a qualifying partnership at the end of any financial year of the partnership must, in respect of that year—

(a) prepare the like annual accounts and directors’ report, and

(b) cause to be prepared such an auditor’s report,

as would be required, if the partnership were a company, under Part 15 (accounts and reports) and Chapter 1 of Part 16 (requirement for audited accounts) of the Companies Act 2006, and under the Small Companies Accounts Regulations or the Large and Medium-sized Companies Accounts Regulations (as the case may be).

…

Delivery of accounts of qualifying partnerships to registrar etc.

5.—(1) Subject to regulation 7, each limited company which is a member of a qualifying partnership at the end of any financial year of the partnership must append to the copy of its accounts and reports which is next delivered to the registrar in accordance with section 441(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (duty to file accounts and reports with the registrar) a copy of the accounts of the partnership prepared for that year under regulation 4.

(2) Subject to regulation 7, a limited company which is a member of a qualifying partnership must supply to any person upon request—

(a) the name of each member of the partnership which is to deliver, or has delivered, a copy of the latest accounts of the partnership to the registrar under paragraph (1), and

(b) the name of each member of the partnership incorporated in a member State other than the United Kingdom which is to publish, or has published, the latest accounts for the partnership in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth or Seventh Directive.

Whoops! It seems to me in my opinion that the reference in Companies House GP02 - April 2011 – Version 2.2 to The Partnerships (Accounts) Regulations 2008 may be problematical. This is because on 13 April 2010 BIS issued a letter

1. It has recently been brought to the Department’s attention that there is a technical defect in the drafting of The Partnership (Accounts) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/569) which deal with the preparation and publication of the annual accounts and reports of certain types of partnership. The 2008 Regulations continue the implementation of Directive 90/605/EEC. I am writing to you as a stakeholder with a particular interest in limited partnerships to check that there are no technical defects in the attached draft regulations amending the definition of “qualifying partnership” in regulation 3 of the 2008 Regulations. Please feel free to circulate this letter to others who you consider may have an interest in this amendment.

…

3. It has been brought to the Department’s attention that that some are interpreting the Regulations as not applying to a limited partnership which has a limited partner who is an individual, even though all the general partners are limited liability entities of the type specified in the Regulations. This is because of a circularity in the definition of “qualifying partnership” in regulations 2(2) and 3. This interpretation is contrary to the requirements of the Directive which (as was explained when the Department consulted on the original implementation of the Directive in 1992) clearly requires that limited partnerships where the general partners (i.e. the partners with unlimited liability) have limited liability must prepare accounts. The legal form of the limited partners (whether they are individuals or companies) is irrelevant.

4. The purpose of the draft regulations is to remove the circularity in the definition of “qualifying partnership”. …

5. It is intended that the new regulations (which will be subject to the negative resolution procedure in Parliament) will come into force on the first available common commencement date, which is likely to be 1 October 2010 and that they will then apply to financial years beginning on or after that date.

…

Amendment of definition of “qualifying partnerships”

2.—(1) Regulation 3 of the Partnerships (Accounts) Regulations 2008(3) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (1), after “each of its members” insert “(or, in the case of a limited partnership, each of its general partners)”.

(3) In paragraph (2)(b), after “each of whose members”, in the first place where it occurs, insert “(or, in the case of a limited partnership, each of its general partners)”.

I did say imply because of the express provision and I do not disagree with Lord Lindley

Interesting that the law is now based on what companies house routinely accepts for filing....

mmm not mentioning accounts we have even seen issued capital =£1000 Authorized capital = £100 (back in the days when this was relevant) on a company formation.......My point being companies house will accept anything for filing.